[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37831-37834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15469]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2008-0617; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-354-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -
900, and -900ER series airplanes. That NPRM proposed to require
repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. That NPRM was
prompted by a report of an in-service occurrence of total loss of boost
pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system
suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the
engine. This action revises that NPRM by proposing to require
repetitive operational tests, and other related testing and corrective
action if necessary. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect
and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel
system, which in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps could
result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and
consequent forced landing of the airplane.
Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed
in the previous NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the
public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by August 9,
2012.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
[[Page 37832]]
street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6438; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0617;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-354-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that
would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. That NPRM published in the
Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32255). That NPRM proposed to
require repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of
the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary.
Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008) Was Issued
Since we issued the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008), we
have received comments from operators indicating a high level of
difficulty performing the actions in the previous NPRM during
maintenance operations.
Relevant Service Information
We reviewed Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D626A001-CMR, Revision
August 2011, of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document. Among other things, Section 9 describes
AWL No. 28-AWL-101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of
Section E., AWLS--Fuel Systems, which provides procedures for
performing repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed
of the fuel system.
Comments
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM
(73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008). The following presents the comments
received on the previous NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Requests To Change Approved Method of Compliance for Operational Test
Continental Airlines (CAL), Airlines for America (A4A) on behalf of
its member American Airlines (AAL), and Sun Country Airlines asked that
the approved method of compliance specified in paragraph (f) of the
previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008) be changed to refer to the
airplane maintenance manual (AMM) instead of requiring the repetitive
tasks.
CAL and AAL recommended that certain language in paragraph (f) of
the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008) be changed to require
incorporation of the operational test into the operator's maintenance
program in the same manner as the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness (ICA).
AAL stated that since there is no modification or terminating
action for the actions specified in the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255,
June 6, 2008), the AD need not mandate the task itself. AAL noted that
operators should be required to incorporate into their respective
maintenance programs a mandatory task, as specified in CMRs, AWLs, or
airworthiness limitation items. AAL stated that this approach would be
consistent with the processes utilized by operators for the SFAR 88 (66
FR 23086, May 7, 2001) requirements.
We agree with the requests to refer to the AMM. AWL No. 28-AWL-101
refers to the AMM. We have replaced paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM
(73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008), with a new paragraph (g) in this
supplemental NPRM that would require the operational tests as specified
in the MPD.
Sun Country Airlines stated that related AMM tasks are equivalent
procedures for performing the operational test referred to in paragraph
(f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008). This commenter
stated that clarification should be provided as to whether using the
procedures specified in AMM Task 28-22-00-710-801 meets the intent of
paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM. This commenter also noted that,
because the AMM task is already contained in Task Card 28-050-00-01,
and has a repetitive interval identified in the MPD, the repetitive
action should be removed from the previous NPRM and addressed as a CMR.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The manifold test (Task
28-22-00-710-801) is not equivalent to the operational test (Task 28-
22-00-710-802) for the purposes of this proposed action. The positive
internal fuel line pressure applied during the manifold test does not
simulate the same conditions encountered during fuel suction feed
(i.e., vacuum), and may mask a failure. We have not changed the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Requests To Clarify if Engine Fuel Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in Lieu
of the Operational Test
KLM, A4A on behalf of its member DAL, and Sun Country Airlines
asked that we clarify the engine fuel suction feed test procedure in
the AMM as an option to performing the operational test. KLM suggested
that we consider the test procedure done per AMM Task 28-22-15-710-801
as an alternative test. KLM added that this alternative test is allowed
by MPD 28-050-00, and is mentioned in Task Card 28-050-00-01. KLM noted
that the advantage of this alternative test is that it can be performed
without fuel in the tank; therefore, if the tanks are still open during
the test and the test fails, easy access is gained to the damaged area.
DAL stated that the intention of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June
6, 2008) seems to be performing an engine fuel suction feed test, so
paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM should be clarified to include that
test as an option. The commenters stated that the engine fuel suction
feed test in the AMM and the operational test in the previous NPRM are
equivalent tests and are allowed per Task Card 28-050-00-01.
We agree to provide clarification. As noted previously, the
manifold test (Task 28-22-00-710-801) is not equivalent to the
operational test (Task 28-22-00-710-802) for the purposes of this
proposed action. The positive internal fuel line pressure applied
during the manifold test does not simulate the same conditions
encountered during fuel suction feed (i.e., vacuum), and may mask a
failure. Therefore, we have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.
Request To Include Corrective Action
Boeing and CAL asked that corrective action be included in the
proposed requirements of the previous NPRM (73
[[Page 37833]]
FR 32255, June 6, 2008). CAL recommended that paragraph (f) of the
previous NPRM be changed to also ``correct any discrepancy identified
as necessary, before further flight. Refer to 737NG FIM 28-22 task
819.'' CAL noted that the fault isolation manual (FIM) should be
considered as an ICA that is an approved method by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Boeing stated that the
requirement in the preamble of the previous NPRM (FAA's Conclusions)
for additional testing would be better described as performing
corrective action in case the engine suction feed operational test is
not successful.
We agree with the requests to include corrective action for this
supplemental NPRM. Since the current revision of the AWL does not
include the corrective action, paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM
specifies that corrective action for findings from the operational
tests be done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, FAA.
Requests To Revise Repetitive Interval
CAL, Qantas Airways Ltd (Qantas), and Boeing asked that we revise
the compliance time for the repetitive operational test proposed by
paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008).
CAL asked that the interval be extended from 7,500 flight hours to
2C-check or 12,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first. As
justification for extending the repetitive interval, CAL stated that
fleet history revealed no reported engine flameout events or related
operational discrepancies.
Qantas and Boeing asked that the repetitive interval be changed to
7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first. Qantas and
Boeing stated that, for low-utilization airplanes, it would take more
than 10 years of operation before an operational test would be
necessary.
We agree to revise the compliance times. We have added new
paragraph (g) to this supplemental NPRM to include an initial test
within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first after
the maintenance program is revised. We have also included a repetitive
interval of 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first.
Request To Include Warning Information
CAL suggested that the Boeing service manuals include a critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCL) warning identification
statement to alert maintenance personnel of the importance of
regulatory compliance, as well as the configuration control requirement
of the task. CAL did not include any justification for this request.
We agree that a CDCCL warning statement would serve as direct
communication to maintenance personnel that there is an AD associated
with certain maintenance actions, but do not find this additional
measure necessary to adequately address the unsafe condition. We have
made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.
Request To Clarify the Reason for the Unsafe Condition
Boeing asked that we clarify the unsafe condition identified in the
previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008) by specifying that the AD
results from a report of an in-service occurrence of total loss of
pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system
suction feed capability on one engine.
We agree to clarify the unsafe condition. We have revised the
Summary section and paragraph (e) of this supplemental NPRM
accordingly.
Request To Revise Costs of Compliance Section
A4A, on behalf of its member DAL, asked that the cost estimate be
changed. DAL stated that the cost estimate specified in the previous
NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008) is too low, and asked that it be
changed. DAL noted that $80 per product based on 1 work hour per
product does not include the cost of fuel. DAL estimated that the cost
of fuel alone would be $83 per test occurrence; for the 71 airplanes in
its fleet, this translates to a cost of $5,893 per test cycle.
We do not agree that the cost estimate should be changed. ADs,
which require specific actions to address specific unsafe conditions,
appear to impose costs that would not otherwise be borne by operators.
However, because of the general obligation of operators to maintain and
operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, this appearance is
deceptive. Attributing those fuel costs solely to the issuance of this
AD is unrealistic because, in the interest of maintaining and operating
safe airplanes, prudent operators would accomplish the required actions
even if they were not required to do so by the AD. In any case, we have
determined that direct and incidental costs are still outweighed by the
safety benefits of the AD. Except for updating the hourly labor rate to
$85, we have made no further change to the cost estimates provided in
this supplemental NPRM.
FAA's Determination
We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
original NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008). As a result, we have
determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this supplemental
NPRM.
Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM
This supplemental NPRM revises the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June
6, 2008); by proposing to require repetitive operational tests of the
engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and would require other
related testing and corrective action if necessary.
Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance
Since issuance of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008), we
have increased the labor rate used in the Costs of Compliance from $80
per work-hour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of Compliance
information, below, reflects this increase in the specified labor rate.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,080 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this
proposed AD:
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost product operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test............................. 1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85 $91,800
$85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37834]]
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions or the optional
terminating action specified in this AD.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs''
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2008-0617; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-354-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by August 9, 2012.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, with a date of issuance of the original airworthiness
certificate or the date of issuance of the original export
certificate of airworthiness before March 22, 2011.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.
(e) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by a report of an in-service occurrence of
total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed
by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and
in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the
fuel system, which in the event of total loss of the fuel boost
pumps could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the
engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Initial/Repetitive Operational Tests
Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do the initial operational test
identified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed
Operational Test, of Section E., AWLS--Fuel Systems of Section 9,
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D626A001-CMR, Revision August 2011, of Boeing
737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Document. Repeat the test thereafter at intervals not to exceed
7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever is earlier. If the test
is not considered successful, as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101,
before further flight, perform all related testing and corrective
actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Thereafter, except as
provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative procedure or
repeat test intervals will be allowed.
(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(i) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6438; fax: 425-
917-6590; email: [email protected].
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 18, 2012.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-15469 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P